Anonymity in court rulings is a critical aspect of privacy protection in the European Union and Switzerland but with the advent of LLMs, concerns about large-scale re-identification of anonymized persons are growing. In accordance with the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland (FSCS), we study re-identification risks using actual legal data. Following the initial experiment, we constructed an anonymized Wikipedia dataset as a more rigorous testing ground to further investigate the findings. In addition to the datasets, we also introduce new metrics to measure performance. We systematically analyze the factors that influence successful re-identifications, identifying model size, input length, and instruction tuning among the most critical determinants. Despite high re-identification rates on Wikipedia, even the best LLMs struggled with court decisions. We demonstrate that for now, the risk of re-identifications using LLMs is minimal in the vast majority of cases. We hope that our system can help enhance the confidence in the security of anonymized decisions, thus leading the courts to publish more decisions.

In this study, we focus on two main tasks, the first for detecting legal violations within unstructured textual data, and the second for associating these violations with potentially affected individuals. We constructed two datasets using Large Language Models (LLMs) which were subsequently validated by domain expert annotators. Both tasks were designed specifically for the context of class-action cases. The experimental design incorporated fine-tuning models from the BERT family and open-source LLMs, and conducting few-shot experiments using closed-source LLMs. Our results, with an F1-score of 62.69% (violation identification) and 81.02% (associating victims), show that our datasets and setups can be used for both tasks. Finally, we publicly release the datasets and the code used for the experiments in order to advance further research in the area of legal natural language processing (NLP).

Resolving the scope of a negation within a sentence is a challenging NLP task. The complexity of legal texts and the lack of annotated in-domain negation corpora pose challenges for state-of-the-art (SotA) models when performing negation scope resolution on multilingual legal data. Our experiments demonstrate that models pre-trained without legal data underperform in the task of negation scope resolution. We release a new set of annotated court decisions in German, French, and Italian and use it to improve negation scope resolution in both zero-shot and multilingual settings. We achieve token-level F1-scores of up to 86.7% in our zero-shot cross-lingual experiments, where the models are trained on two languages of our legal datasets and evaluated on the third. Our multilingual experiments, where the models were trained on all available negation data and evaluated on our legal datasets, resulted in F1-scores of up to 91.1%.

The assessment of explainability in Legal Judgement Prediction (LJP) systems is of paramount importance in building trustworthy and transparent systems, particularly considering the reliance of these systems on factors that may lack legal relevance or involve sensitive attributes. This study delves into the realm of explainability and fairness in LJP models, utilizing Swiss Judgement Prediction (SJP), the only available multilingual LJP dataset. We curate a comprehensive collection of rationales that ‘support’ and ‘oppose’ judgement from legal experts for 108 cases in German, French, and Italian. By employing an occlusion-based explainability approach, we evaluate the explainability performance of state-of-the-art monolingual and multilingual BERT-based LJP models, as well as models developed with techniques such as data augmentation and cross-lingual transfer, which demonstrated prediction performance improvement. Notably, our findings reveal that improved prediction performance does not necessarily correspond to enhanced explainability performance, underscoring the significance of evaluating models from an explainability perspective. Additionally, we introduce a novel evaluation framework, Lower Court Insertion (LCI), which allows us to quantify the influence of lower court information on model predictions, exposing current models’ biases.

Lately, propelled by phenomenal advances around the transformer architecture, the legal NLP field has enjoyed spectacular growth. To measure progress, well-curated and challenging benchmarks are crucial. Previous efforts have produced numerous benchmarks for general NLP models, typically based on news or Wikipedia. However, these may not fit specific domains such as law, with its unique lexicons and intricate sentence structures. Even though there is a rising need to build NLP systems for languages other than English, many benchmarks are available only in English and no multilingual benchmark exists in the legal NLP field. We survey the legal NLP literature and select 11 datasets covering 24 languages, creating LEXTREME. To fairly compare models, we propose two aggregate scores, i.e., dataset aggregate score and language aggregate score. Our results show that even the best baseline only achieves modest results, and also ChatGPT struggles with many tasks. This indicates that LEXTREME remains a challenging task with ample room for improvement. To facilitate easy use for researchers and practitioners, we release LEXTREME on huggingface along with a public leaderboard and the necessary code to evaluate models. We also provide a public Weights and Biases project containing all runs for transparency.

Releasing court decisions to the public relies on proper anonymization to protect all involved parties, where necessary. The Swiss Federal Supreme Court relies on an existing system that combines different traditional computational methods with human experts. In this work, we enhance the existing anonymization software using a large dataset annotated with entities to be anonymized. We compared BERT-based models with models pre-trained on in-domain data. Our results show that using in-domain data to pre-train the models further improves the F1-score by more than 5% compared to existing models. Our work demonstrates that combining existing anonymization methods, such as regular expressions, with machine learning can further reduce manual labor and enhance automatic suggestions.

Cross-lingual transfer learning has proven useful in a variety of Natural Language (NLP) tasks, but it is understudied in the context of legal NLP, and not at all in Legal Judgment Prediction (LJP). We explore transfer learning techniques on LJP using the trilingual Swiss-Judgment-Prediction (SJP) dataset, including cases written in three languages. We find that Cross-Lingual Transfer (CLT) improves the overall results across languages, especially when we use adapter-based fine-tuning. Finally, we further improve the model’s performance by augmenting the training dataset with machine-translated versions of the original documents, using a 3× larger training corpus. Further on, we perform an analysis exploring the effect of cross-domain and cross-regional transfer, i.e., train a model across domains (legal areas), or regions. We find that in both settings (legal areas, origin regions), models trained across all groups perform overall better, while they also have improved results in the worst-case scenarios. Finally, we report improved results when we ambitiously apply cross-jurisdiction transfer, where we further augment our dataset with Indian legal cases.

The research field of Legal Natural Language Processing (NLP) has been very active recently, with Legal Judgment Prediction (LJP) becoming one of the most extensively studied tasks. To date, most publicly released LJP datasets originate from countries with civil law. In this work, we release, for the first time, a challenging LJP dataset focused on class action cases in the US. It is the first dataset in the common law system that focuses on the harder and more realistic task involving the complaints as input instead of the often used facts summary written by the court. Additionally, we study the difficulty of the task by collecting expert human predictions, showing that even human experts can only reach 53% accuracy on this dataset. Our Longformer model clearly outperforms the human baseline (63%), despite only considering the first 2,048 tokens. Furthermore, we perform a detailed error analysis and find that the Longformer model is significantly better calibrated than the human experts. Finally, we publicly release the dataset and the code used for the experiments.

In many jurisdictions, the excessive workload of courts leads to high delays. Suitable predictive AI models can assist legal professionals in their work, and thus enhance and speed up the process. So far, Legal Judgment Prediction (LJP) datasets have been released in English, French, and Chinese. We publicly release a multilingual (German, French, and Italian), diachronic (2000-2020) corpus of 85K cases from the Federal Supreme Court of Switzer- land (FSCS). We evaluate state-of-the-art BERT-based methods including two variants of BERT that overcome the BERT input (text) length limitation (up to 512 tokens). Hierarchical BERT has the best performance (approx. 68-70% Macro-F1-Score in German and French). Furthermore, we study how several factors (canton of origin, year of publication, text length, legal area) affect performance. We release both the benchmark dataset and our code to accelerate future research and ensure reproducibility.